Hey

I did leave out Amtrak. I just thought that was piling on.

based on these clear government failures, i'm looking forward to a 2010 republican campaign centered on getting rid of the post office, social security, medicare and medicaid.

might i suggest you folks throw in tearing up the national highway system and have it replaced by a privately run national tollway system. market forces really ought to be able to do a better job than the travesty we're now saddled with. market forces are the solution to all problems after all.

All this only makes the point that this shouldn't be treated like some sort of option. It should be treated like crime protection, fire protection, and military protection. When this plan starts working, I do not expect you to be paying 5k a year for you n' your husband's yearly medical care. Wait n' see. You are going to be better off. Right now, I would guess that, even though you n' hubby are paying that much, you are still at risk of being dropped if you get a long-term illness. Maybe one of you needs a 100k surgery, and then they try to make you folks pay 10k/year. They can do this right now. You have quite a ways to go before you're covered by Medicare. This black guy you've been bad mouthing is gunna save you n' hubby a lot of money. You are red meat right now for insurance companies to savage(and they are doing exactly that.) Right now, some of these insurance companies are only using 50% of their money on patients care. The other half is on stuff like C.E.O pay etc. Under this plan, they are gunna have to spend 85% of the money on patient care. There is zero doubt in my mind that you n' hubby are going to be better off, but you wait n' tell me about it. Doesn't sound like what you've got is something to be thrilled about having. You really want to keep paying 5k a year? Try 12-15k if this doesn't pass, and you start having to use your insurance. What about if you both somehow lose your jobs, and don't have it offered by your new employer. That happens. People have to take jobs that don't offer any coverage. Under this plan, you'll keep your insurance(and pay whatever portion of the premiums your new income will support.)There are big consumer protections with this plan. You know this is not radical. I know it's sold that way on here, but civilized Democracies do this for a good reason (the alternative does not work.) You think it works, but I'm pretty sure there are circumstances (beyond your control) that would change your mind about this system.

Well, they are against sharing risk. There are many reasons for that. One main one is the lack of common blood(melting pot.) People are much less interested in sharing risk with people that aren't like themselves. If you're Swedish, then you're probably going to be more more willing to want to share risk with Swedes. That's because of ethnic pride, and common cultural values. Other than this no-common-tribe factor though, one can't deny that most of those against healthcare reform are simply selfish and/or stubborn. Look, when you have a couple paying 5k a year, and they don't want to change it? That's pretty damn stubborn. The thing about a lot of these folks that gets me is how they so quickly change their tune about the value of human life. Something doesn't even have a brain yet, and they consider it so precious. Well, fine, but notice how they change their tune later on if that baby grows up poor. Couple weeks ago they had some lady show up at one of those arena clinics they've been having. There is nothing they could really do for her. She had breast cancer eating her up. Amazing how if she was 2 months in the womb they'd care about her, but not now. Now they think she's getting what she must be deserving. At that same arena clinic they had a nurse come for care. They weren't getting enough hours, at either hospital they worked at, to qualify for medical coverage.

you do know Obama's 'adopted' land is Chicago where the highways, parking meters and maybe water dept have been 'privately leased' for 99 yrs to foreign entities........

and them the Dem Machine!

the reality is that yes, all those systems would be handled better by the private sector. no doubt, all of them.

where would you draw the line? can you not see that the line keeps moving and that one by one our freedoms are disappearing and they're creating a system that traps people in a dependent status, forever relying on the government? all in the name of fairness and equality. i've seen this plan before, it's been tried, and it doesn't work. It doesn't end well.

so your idea is let's go for the full monty, lets do it all. we'll get our jobs, cars, health care, food, housing and all other rations directly from uncle sam?

The necessity of the programs arent the topic, the financial failures of these govt run businesses is, especially when we are being told Obamacare will be a rousing financial success. There seemingly is no precedent for this.

actually, no. my idea is that we've lived in a mixed economy all our lives. it's one where the market has successfully co-existed with government programs. and there's legitimate arguments about what is best handled by each.

that isn't a radical idea. what's actually radical is the rhetoric being piped down from the extreme right and repeated here that there is no legitimate role for government in the economy. anytime. anywhere. that cutting government is always good and if we just unleash market forces all problems will be solved.

that seems to fly in the face of the experience we just went through where regulation of banking was loosened to the point that the invisible hand of the market just about steered us into a depression. and were it not for unprecedented government intervention in the economy, would have.

the problem is the right can't seem to learn. the rhetoric is always the same regardless of the circumstance.

any ny state resident should be ashamed of our senators , where was the girl from saratoga county ,she could have gotten NY some free handouts , ny is going to take worse on the chin than any other state

Lyndsey Graham wants you to know that his state has a 31% African American Population.

Your generalization is far offbase.

The idea that of lax banking regulation almost forcing us into a depression or govt intervention somehow prevented that from happening is complete fiction. Roughly a month a ago the Fed Reserve admitted that the basic premise that the original TARP was passed upon was for the most part not true.

I guess you missed the that.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...408387548.html

Spin this

Why would you think anyone you are arguing with would take anything in the WSJ seriously? One of the 1st things I see on there is Karl Rove's name. If he's on there, it's limited. Can I write on there about illegal immigration, n' Islam? That's really the 2 issues you folks have come correct on(2 hits, and a gang of outs.)

that would be like saying fox news is liberal because alan colmes had his name on there. i don't care for karl rove, but i still read the wsj.

The WSJ is a big boy publication.

Cheney n' Rove are off the chart. If either one is writing in your paper, then it's only credible with Conservatives. To be honest, MSNBC(Progressive) and Fox News are that way, too. To MSNBC's credit, they do have Scarborough, and Buchanon on in the early mornings. They each at least have a good sense of humor(especially Pat.) When you have Pat Buchanon sitting there as Mika-the-Blonde is reading the news, it's a minefield. They were talking about the glut of Chihuahuas in Cali animal shelters, and Joe asked him what he thought about it.

Pat said "Those are Mexican Dogs....Aren't they?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuUdV...eature=related

^ Watch him blow it up after the fist pound starting at 2:05. LOL.They are talking about his interview with Ali G. That was pretty kool, too. He's such a good sport.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dAfQh...eature=related

lol..at 1:00 Pat stars..MERRY CHRISTMAS EVERYBODY!! Laugh, cry, or drink some more wine.

"Dr. Gottlieb ... He is partner to a firm that invests in health-care companies."

Naw. This guy would have no interest at all in looking out for the financial interests of healthcare companies, first and foremost, in any healthcare reform. Not part of that lobby. Nope. :D

Not so much on the op-ed page since Rupert Murdoch bought it in 2007. You know Rupert - owner of Fox News?

You're the only guy I know who quotes op-ed pieces as if they were fact.